or may not, agree in adopting the views of that individual.

Since, then, this anecdote proves nothing, it is difficult to tell why it should be thought so important as to be recorded in a book. By making Dr. Priestley speak this language, and giving it such a construction, as you would have it bear, he is exhibited in a character directly opposite to that, in which he appeared during his whole life. In him no traits were more remarkable, than his mild and amiable temper, his benevolent and christian spirit, and his desire to open the door of christian fellowship to all the believers in Jesus, and followers of his word. And yet, his authority is here used to justify one of the severest censures, which one christian could pronounce on another, and to sanction against persons, whose opinions resemble his, a sentence of total exclusion, not only from all ecclesiastical intercourse, but from the common privileges of christians.

In regard to the charge of licentiousness and immorality, which you have made against Unitarians, you must not think me importunate in making a few direct and particular inquiries. Let me ask, whether you have the testimony of your own experience? Have you lived in the society of Unitarians, and do you judge from personal observation? Have you had any direct means whatever of knowing the practical effects of their principles? These questions, it is presumed, will be answered in the negative. And was it not premature, to say the least, thus to impeach the morals of a class of christians, without hav

ing from experience a most intimate knowledge of facts? Hearsay, and rumour, and conjecture were not enough in so grave a matter.

Although you had never witnessed the state of morals or religion in a society composed wholly of Unitarians, you were undoubtedly acquainted with individuals of this belief, and some, perhaps, whom you have reason to call your friends. And have you, indeed, found among these persons such marks of depravity and irreligion, that you feel authorized from their example to fix a stigma, and pass a sentence of reprobation on a whole sect? If it had been your misfortune to meet only with such characters among Unitarians, and you judged from what you saw, it would have been but doing justice to the great body of those, who profess their belief, to let the public know the source, as well as the extent of your information. As your charges stand at present, your readers are called on to believe, that they are applicable "all over the world." And although you might think your conclusions deduced by good logic, others might not, and in a case of so much importance, it would have seemed proper at least to make your antecedent propositions as clear as your deductions.

Let me inquire further, and call your attention particularly to that portion of the country, where Unitarian principles have been long prevalent, and where they are embraced by a large portion of the community. Are you prepared to charge the people of Boston, and its vicinity, with a higher degree of im

morality, and depravity of manners, than is found in other cities? Are you prepared to say, that the churches in that place, more than in any other, are filled with the "gay, the fashionable, the worldly minded, and the licentious?" In Boston, if any where, may be found a proof of your assertions, because in that place the Unitarians probably make the most numerous class of society. But will you come before the public with any attempt to exhibit such proof? No. You will not assail the moral character of a great number of the leading and most respectable members of society. You will never investigate the state of manners, the charitable and religious institutions, the morals and practical piety of Unitarians, as a body, in any place, and then publish the result of your investigation, as a proof, that they are more "worldly minded" or "licentious," than christians of other denominations. This is an at

tempt in which you never will engage.

It is true, you have hinted at discoveries, which might be made, had you "time to trace the history of American Unitarianism." Was not this an unfair insinuation? Your readers are left to imagine much evil concealed, which nothing but want of time prevents you from bringing to light. It is incumbent on you to disabuse them by tracing this history. Let it be done impartially, and then compared with the history of the Presbyterian church, or of any other church, and no Unitarian will shrink from the parallel. He will want no better illustration of the comparative moral influence of his principles, and no clearer refutation of your charges.

In regard to Unitarians generally, I do not doubt, that there are some among them, whose lives and conduct are not so much influenced by religious principles, as every good man and pious christian could wish. But I would gladly be informed, if there are no such among the Presbyterians, and other denominations? Are all sects immaculate, but Unitarians? Unless this be the case, on what principles of justice are these singled out, as worthy of special denunciation ? Unitarians are not in the habit of proclaiming their virtues, and their religious acts from the house-top. Pii orant taciti. Piety adores in silence. They consider religion a thing, in which a man is intimately concerned with his Maker. Where it does not exist in the heart, speak to the conscience in the still small voice of heavenly truth, and exercise a controlling influence over the affections and the will, they look on pretensions, show, and loud professions as proving little else, than hypocrisy and delusion. Perhaps they do not make so much parade and noise about religion, as some others; but even allowing this, it still remains to be proved, that they have less of the humble spirit of fervent piety, less of earnestness in their devotions, and of ardour in their love and pursuit of truth, less, indeed, of any of those qualities, which our Saviour has declared to be requisite in his sincere and faithful followers. Now these are things, which have not been proved, and which it is not likely you will undertake to prove.

The truth is, that, in modern times, at least, Unitarianism has every where been an unpopular faith. It is embraced at the expense of many sacrifices of

personal interest and influence, of the affection of friends, and the esteem of the world. Unitarians of the present day, both in this country and in England, are converts from the different sects of orthodoxy. They have changed their sentiments from serious conviction, founded on inquiry and a desire of truth. Every inducement, which the world could hold out, every motive, which could spring from a love of self, or a prospect of future gain, or a hope of temporal aggrandizement, has conspired to try their integrity, and to keep them in the ranks of orthodoxy. They have resisted all. The silent voice of conscience has been more powerful with them, than the clamours of the world. Upheld by the majesty of truth, and the rectitude of good intention, they have shut their ears to the cry of heresy, infidelity; and irreligion; they have submitted to the assaults of bigotry and persecution; they have willingly suffered the reproaches, and given up the good opinion of men, for the commands of Christ, and the consolations of a scriptural faith.

In conduct like this do you discover no indications of a moral sense, and a righteous purpose? What laws of human nature bring you to the conclusion, that a large class of persons have voluntarily resigned many of their worldly advantages, their privileges and attachments, and submitted to become the byword of their brethren, whom they have loved and respected, and exposed themselves to all the odious charges, which willing credulity and ignorant zeal could devise, and yet have no claims to the merit of